Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that once again you have provided an outstanding judgment.

This afternoon we will continue with the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will begin with the motion standing in my name with regard to the Standing Orders. We will then proceed to report stage and third reading of Bill C-39, respecting the health accord. When this is complete, we will return to Bill C-38, which is the civil marriage bill. This will also be the business on Monday.

Tuesday will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, the financial legislation; Bill C-8, the public service bill; Bill C-3, respecting the Coast Guard; and Bill S-17, respecting tax conventions.

At 4 p.m. on Wednesday the Minister of Finance will make his budget presentation. We shall take up the debate on the budget on Thursday.

As well, with respect to the hon. member's question, I would say to the hon. member that in the fullness of time we would have the Judges Act in the House. I will take every opportunity to ensure that House leaders are fully informed of when that legislation is to come to the House.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. House leader for the official opposition.

Privilege

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs with contempt for misrepresenting and dismissing the role of this House.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 15, the House defeated Bill C-31, an act to establish the Department of International Trade and to make related amendments to certain acts. The House also defeated Bill C-32, an act the amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Bill C-31 proposed to establish the Department of International Trade and Bill C-32 proposed to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and other acts as a consequence of the proposal from Bill C-31 to establish the Department of International Trade. I use the word “proposed” because, as we know, until Parliament establishes or amends an act, the act is not established or amended.

The government or the two responsible ministers have dismissed the legislative process. The trade minister is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

I was disappointed [the Conservatives] went against what they said they were going to do, but having said that, we are continuing to work head on.

The article also goes on to report:

Trade Minister...yesterday shrugged off the defeat of a bill that would create a new international trade department separate from the Department of Foreign Affairs, saying the two branches of government will continue to operate independently without Parliament's blessing.

The Ottawa Citizen reported the minister as saying:

We're not going to undo all the work we have done to become a functioning department.

The minister's comments show total disregard and disrespect for the role of the House. If the House is to function with authority and dignity, then it must be respected, especially by its own members, and particularly by the cabinet which is responsible to it.

While such disrespect is not new, the severity of this case is. Speakers have warned the government in the past for its dismissive view of Parliament.

I am very certain that the government will rise, be unapologetic and claim that it has the authority to do what it is doing. However, that is not the point. Why would the government introduce legislation pretending that it matters when it does not? Then, when the outcome is not favourable to it, the government ignores the outcome. The government is making a mockery of Parliament. What is the public to think? The passage or defeat of bills does not matter. Parliament does not matter. Members of this House are irrelevant.

Is all that matters, what decisions are made in the PMO? What happened to the Prime Minister who wanted to end the practice of getting things done based on who one knew in the PMO? What happened to the Prime Minister who wanted to slay the democratic deficit? His ministers have just bankrupted democracy.

I would like to submit a ruling from October 10, 1989, on a similar matter. While it was a similar matter in comparison to the case I am presenting today, it was less offensive, I conclude. Notwithstanding, Speaker Fraser took it very seriously. The issue was regarding an advertisement put out by the government which made it appear, and I stress the word “appear”, that the GST was approved by Parliament before Parliament actually approved it.

In the case of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, there is no appearance. The government has already implemented the measures in Bill C-31 and Bill C-32. The bills have been defeated, and that outcome has been ignored.

Getting back to Speaker Fraser's ruling, the Speaker quoted the former member for Windsor West, the Right Hon. Herb Gray. Mr. Gray said:

When this advertisement--says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1, 1991,--the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly a contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House.

As I mentioned, the case I am presenting to the Speaker today goes beyond appearance. If that is not offensive enough, the attitude of the Minister of International Trade and his intentions and the intentions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to forge ahead are grounds enough for contempt. Where is the respect for the institution of Parliament? How can a minister of the Crown, who is responsible to the House, show such disregard and disrespect?

While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege, he did say this:

I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

I would argue that the situation I am presenting today is very much like the situation from 1989. The obvious difference is that it is far worse.

I do not understand why this sort of situation has not been addressed in the past. This government has a sordid past in these matters, and because the House has never dealt adequately with it, the government continues to make a mockery of Parliament. It has now gone to new heights and has taken it to a point where it can no longer be ignored.

To illustrate this point let me review some of the past disrespectful acts of the Liberal government.

On March 30, 1998, the minister of international trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that time there was no Canada-China interparliamentary group.

The government named the head of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was even legislation to set up the foundation.

There was another case presented to the Speaker on October 28, 1997, relating to the actions of the Department of Finance.

On February 3, 1998, I raised a question of privilege condemning the government for its dismissive views of Parliament on a matter regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.

These complaints resulted in many warnings from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. One of the warnings came from Speaker Parent on November 6, 1997. It was as strong as Speaker Fraser's warning and it went like this:

--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department of Finance are of some concern....This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices....I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

If a warning from the Speaker is to mean something, then the Speaker must be prepared to follow through with it. The Speaker's job is to ensure the House is given the opportunity to protect its authority and dignity.

I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege. I thank the House leader for the opposition for raising this because the NDP has a similar sentiment.

These two bills were defeated by a democratic vote in the House a couple of days ago. Now we have read that the two ministers and departments in question are going to go ahead anyway. This completely disregards the vote held in the House, and it is a very serious question. Surely it gets to the fundamental premise of why we are here in this place.

There was point of order before you this morning, Mr. Speaker, about something that happened in committee, and about how things can become frustrating.

A vote in the House is a definitive act. The most basic thing we do in this place is vote on a bill either yea or nay. When those two bills were defeated, it was the voice of Parliament speaking. For the two ministers in question to basically thumb their noses at Parliament is a matter of contempt.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take this question seriously. This is a minority Parliament. This is a Parliament where we take our business very seriously in terms of working together and being constructive. We expect to see the kind of respect and the proper consequences as a result of a vote taken place in the House.

This is a serious matter. For the reasons I just gave, it should be reviewed by the Speaker, a decision made and followed up.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, was in question period when I said that the government was presently considering other parliamentary options to present to the House. Presently, both departments are working under the parliamentary sanction of the appropriations act.

More specific, I would draw to the hon. member's attention that in the 2004-05 main estimates, again the estimates voted by Parliament, there is specific moneys earmarked for the specific function of the two ministers and those two departments. The moneys were voted specifically for their function.

I would just draw the member's attention both on the general summary, item 10, for foreign affairs and international trade; foreign affairs, which is money appropriated for that purpose. Item 17 in the general summary, again, international trade, dollars were voted for by this Parliament specifically for the continued operation of those two departments.

I would not at any point in time want to suggest to the House, nor to my colleagues, that the defeat of both Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 are in any way being disregarded. They are not.

I clearly stated in question period that we were presently looking at other parliamentary options to bring back to this House. In the interim both departments are operating based on moneys appropriated by this Parliament and voted by this Parliament so both of those departments can continue to operate at this time.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader, from whom we just heard, I think underscored the problem that the House and Mr. Speaker faces.

Indeed, the day after this House deliberately rejected the government bill, which would give administrative effect to the estimates to which he refers, the government House leader was quoted in a Canadian Press article as saying, “The reorganization itself is ongoing. It will be a matter of the legislation catching”. I think this would indicate what in criminal law is referred to as mens rea , an intent to ignore and go around the will of Parliament.

I would ask that Your Honour consider this statement in your ruling.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way might want to interpret whatever I say in any way he might like.

What I want to make perfectly clear is what I have said and essentially have referred to is that the departments will continue to operate based on the appropriations that have been voted to those departments from the main estimates in this House. Legislation and parliamentary options are being considered and to be presented back to this House. That is exactly what I said. That is the basis with which those two departments can operate.

[The Speaker]

I do not know that I need to hear a lot more. We got the point. I think I will take the matter under--

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

One last point, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

The trouble is if I hear one more final point from the hon. member, I will hear another from the member for Vancouver East and then another from the government House leader. Is this necessary? Is this something new?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point, if the member was listening carefully to my question of privilege, that at no point did I talk about the budgetary process or money set aside. I was referring to the total disregard and disrespect of the ministers and the government to a decision made by this House in a democratic vote.

[The Speaker]

I think we will bring this to an end. I have heard the arguments on both sides. I do not think anything new was added by what the opposition House leader just said. I think I got that message before.

I will review the transcripts of the arguments today. I will look at the statements of the ministers alleged to have been made by the member for Calgary Southeast and the opposition House leader. I will come back to the House in due course with a ruling on this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my distinguished colleague from Red Deer.

As the environment critic for the official opposition, he has considerable knowledge and experience in environmental matters, and a deep concern to see Canadians not only survive but flourish in the transition to the green economy.

I am Parliament's first auto worker by profession. I understand this industry in a way that is entirely unique. I understand by firsthand experience the human face of our decisions in Parliament. I know what it is like to live and work day after day, year after year, with the anxiety of job insecurity. I participated as a worker in helping DaimlerChrysler's Windsor assembly plant compete to secure product, not against other auto manufacturers but against its own sister assembly plant in St. Louis, Missouri.

I have survived the closure or the Pillette Road truck assembly plant. Sadly, several hundred of my brothers and sisters on the line are still on layoff, now going on nearly three years. I can tell everyone about the folks I left behind on the assembly line to come to Ottawa. I spend sleepless nights sometimes thinking about them. I see their faces, I know their families, and I take their future seriously. I vowed to fight for their jobs.

I think about the communities I serve, built with the tax dollars of auto workers. I think of the institutions that serve our communities, funded through agencies like the United Way, by the generous giving of auto workers. I think of the union members that work to build the community and preserve auto jobs, and how their political cousins in the NDP have ignored some of their most important advice on Kyoto. This motion before us today will hurt, not help, auto jobs and the communities they support in Canada.

The motion would regulate fuel efficiency improvements in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada. I will give credit where credit is deserved. The fuel efficiency standard by weight class is a better standard than the Liberal government has been pursuing, a standard averaged across the fleet.

However, the motion before us today does not provide Canadians with the information they need to make a real informed choice on this matter. The NDP has left out a target, a timeline and a full accounting of all the costs. It is not just health costs that are talked about in this motion, but the costs of programs, industry costs, threats to jobs and the loss to community institutions if those high paying jobs leave our communities for foreign labour markets.

What the NDP should really tell Canadians is that it wants a 25% increase in fuel efficiency to make the 2010 averaging year under Kyoto. It hopes to achieve this without the U.S. and Mexico partnering in a common standard. It further hopes to achieve this while maintaining auto jobs and investing in a Canada that has lost virtually all of its comparative advantages against other global manufacturing jurisdictions, and without losing further market share to foreign auto manufacturers who have environmental cost comparative advantages on us. This is entirely unrealistic.

The NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who I have a lot of respect for and spoke earlier this morning in defence of this motion, said at the environment committee this week that in business he would never forget a target or timeline. It makes it impossible to get where one needs to go. In proposing the motion before us today, his party forgot both. We need a target and a timeline, but we need the right target and the right timeline.

The 25% fuel efficiency improvement by 2010 is a good target and timeline if we had started immediately in 1995. That is what Japan and the European Union did. It makes cost abatement for the industry easier and gave both Japan and Europe a comparative advantage against Canadian manufacturers in the move to a carbon constrained economy.

In all fairness, the NDP is not to blame for this. This is the fault of the Liberal government. It has dithered rather than delivered on significant tax measures and signals to industry and consumers to usher in the green economy. The Liberals have squandered five crucial years on negotiating a fuel efficiency standard to bring new technologies into current vehicle production and allow automakers to spread out their costs to do this.

To remedy this deficiency, I recommend that the government add the five years it has squandered to the 2010 timeline for lost opportunities. The NDP motion insists on compounding Liberal mistakes with the great mistake of adhering to a 2010 average timeline instead of a 2015 timeline. Further, the NDP motion insists on 25% improvement without telling Canadians what it will cost them to get there.

I suspect when it comes to the auto industry and fuel efficiency regulations for Kyoto commitments, the NDP is afraid of taxpayer sticker shock. There are additional and more hidden costs: more jobs lost, lower tax revenues to all levels of government to fund social programs, more strain on programs like EI, and fewer charitable dollars for community programs.

With 180,000 Canadians, including tens of thousands in my communities employed in auto manufacturing and parts jobs, and a further 350,000 in related sectors from dealerships to financial services to transport, we cannot gamble with people's lives over implementing Kyoto. We must get it right.

A further deficiency in the NDP motion is that it ignores the North American integrated market. The motion proposes fuel efficiency regulations for vehicles sold in Canada. Only 20% of vehicles built in Canada are sold in Canada; 80% are sold to the U.S. and Mexico. Canada imports most of the vehicle supplies from the U.S., so the NDP motion, if adopted, is a pyrrhic victory for the slayers of climate change because if acted upon it will have a negligible impact on reducing greenhouse gas levels toward Kyoto commitments.

To make a real impact across the Canadian fleet, U.S. automakers would need to incorporate the same fuel efficiency standards for vehicle exports to Canada. With the Canadian market so small for vehicle sales, there is no prospect for the redesign and retooling costs to accommodate such a standard being recouped by U.S. automakers. If my NDP colleagues do not believe me, perhaps they will consider this from Buzz Hargrove. I call it a Buzz word of wisdom: “It's unrealistic to think that automakers will engineer unique vehicles just for the Canadian market--”. The only other option is to restrict products to the Canadian market and consumers will not tolerate a lack of vehicle choice.

We already have tremendous disharmony with the United States, and Mexico too, on regulatory standards that hurt our competitiveness in attracting and retaining auto investment. Mexico has capitalized on this to become a serious export competitor to Canada by supplying U.S. markets. China will become the next serious export competitor. We need more regulatory harmony to keep and compete for auto jobs and investment in Canada.

Here is where the Liberal government has also failed the test. It has already squandered five years to negotiate a fuel efficiency standard to move new technologies into new vehicles. It has spent a marathon 21 days negotiating with Canadian auto manufacturers on a proposed fuel efficiency standard. Thankfully it has failed to deliver.

A sensible understanding of the integrated North American market means a fuel efficiency standard must be achieved commonly with the U.S. and Mexico. Sadly, the Liberal government has squandered so much credibility and clout with the U.S. President and congress by its toleration of anti-Americanism that it could not ensure the U.S. would join us in Kyoto to level the auto investment playing field.

I doubt whether it could bring them to the table to negotiate a common North American fuel efficiency standard that moves us to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, I recommend it does so immediately so our domestic producers can share Kyoto costs and reposition our North American market from slow integrators of environmental technologies to overcome the comparative disadvantage versus Japan in the EU in the move to a carbon-constrained economy.

Not only should the government add five years to the 2010 timeline for its slow start with domestic auto producers to bring technologies on stream, it must add the additional delay to negotiate a common North American fuel efficiency standard. It will be well worth it though when we move together to regain the global lead in auto technologies, and if the Liberal government cannot achieve it then the people will have to elect a Conservative government to get the job done right.

Our NDP colleagues across the way would do well to support collaboration with the U.S. and Mexico. Consider a further Buzz word of wisdom: “Our strategy for improving fuel efficiency must be implemented carefully and thoughtfully, with fuel efficiency standards set in concert with those of U.S. and Mexico”. The motion before us today should have recognized this. It does not.

Finally, the NDP motion before us today fails to account for the fragile position of Canadian auto manufacturers in a globally competitive industry or the opportunities that their environmental regulation creates for foreign labour markets and automakers to seize our markets and end our jobs.

Global auto production has become fiercely competitive for a myriad of reasons. Automakers in Asia and Europe have gained considerable market share and the traditional big three employers are in a financially precarious position heading into the new green economy. Auto investment decisions that affect Canadian jobs and communities are made in Stuttgart, Germany; Dearborn, Michigan; and Tokyo, Japan, not in Canada.

In the past six years Canada's cost advantages have virtually disappeared. Kyoto means additional cost pressures to auto production in Canada from higher energy costs, higher costs for steel, plastics and chemicals because they come from energy intensive sectors, and increased costs for trucking vehicles to markets and parts to assembly.

The NDP motion today proposes that vehicles sold in Canada should incorporate technologies for higher fuel efficiency. While Toyota and Honda are at or within reach of incorporating these technologies, the big three manufacturers will face higher costs to comply which they fund from the sale of trucks, minivans and SUVs. While the NDP motion will--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Questions and comments.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, if I understood the hon. member correctly, and I am sure that he would want to clarify it for the House, he suggested that somehow Canada was responsible for the United States not signing on to Kyoto.

The United States acts in its national interest. We act in our national interest. The United States did not sign the Ottawa convention. It did not sign the small arms treaty. It has not signed on with regard to International Criminal Court. The fact is it was not Canada's decision. Canada makes its own decisions and the United States makes its own decisions.

The member suggested somehow that we have not done anything. I want to again dispel in the House the notion that $3.7 billion has been assigned. In fact, we talk about the $250 million for the green municipal funds, the $1.7 billion in terms of technology and innovation. We talk about public education. We talk about climate science, all of these things that are necessary in a broad approach.

When the member suggests that nothing has been done, a lot of things have been done in collaboration with various stakeholders across the country including cities and the provinces.

Even though the United States has not signed on, 42 states are moving toward Kyoto targets. Therefore, I would like him to clarify his suggestion that the Americans have done nothing and that it is our fault.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite does a lot of linguistic gymnastics. Let me clarify for the House. I said that the federal government has bungled the relationship with the United States and could not exert the proper influence to ensure that the United States would come on board with regard to Kyoto.

The Canadian government does not have the proper leadership, the clout or the ability to curry favour with the United States or Mexico in order to bring them into some discussions or negotiations on fuel efficiency standard that would be continental wide.

It is important that we have a continental wide standard. We do not have 42 states yet that have the standard. They may be moving toward it or looking at it or whatever, but we need to move in concert. That is what Buzz Hargrove has said.

It is reasonable to assume that if a continent that is out of step with Europe and Asia, and needs to compete with Europe and Asia to overcome a comparative disadvantage, that it do so in concert, and not segment the market further into chunks. We want a whole market, a whole standard that will allow us to not only compete but to overtake Europe and Asia in this regard.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Chair, I am disappointed the hon. member did not get to finish his speech. I was looking forward to the conclusion and summation.

The harmonization aspect that he is talking about is exactly what we are looking at. When we have California, New York, Maine, Washington and a number of other states starting to sign up, we start to look at 50% of the auto market. This is harmonization. Having George Bush at the table would not help us. It is not controlled at the federal level. It is controlled at the state level. This is what harmonization is about. This is the market that we are going toward.

Buzz Hargrove also supported our green auto policy. We are going outside the focus and mission of the motion that has been put forward by our party today which is the debate between mandatory, which we are suggesting and which the critic for the member's party has also agreed with, versus the optional system that the Liberals have been pushing for years without any results.

The question I have for my hon. colleague, for whom I have great esteem, is this. Is he in support of mandatory emissions standards? If so, why not support this motion? That is what it specifically calls for.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the direction with respect to my comments, very clearly, has been to indicate that this is not simply a debate with no context. The motion does have some context. The party opposite has a position with respect to what the fuel efficiency standards should be and what the timelines should be. Those are important things to consider, but whether they are workable and realistic is something else. The motion, however, does not go into any of those details.

Furthermore, I think some details would have been pertinent to pushing the government in the direction in which it needs to go because it has really bungled this. A lot of time has been lost and it could have delivered something. Time is ticking away. We need to have specifics, not abstract debates.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the motion today and to clarify something for the NDP critic.

I appreciate the motion today but I have one problem with the word “mandatory”. I do not feel that mandatory demonstrates a cooperative approach, the approach we have to use if we want to achieve this kind of work with our industries and with Canadians. What we are lacking is a long term plan and a vision.

Members on the other side have talked about how much the government has done and what a wonderful record it has in terms of the environment. We need to continually remind them what the environment commissioner said in her last six reports, that the government talks a lot but accomplishes very little.

We need to remind them that when the OECD looked at 24 of the top industrialized countries it said that Canada rated at the very bottom, that it was 24 out of 24.

We need to remind them that there are over 300 boil water warnings at any given time in Canada. Who would have thought that Canada, that pristine, clean place that many of our international friends think we have, would have 300 boil water warnings? One might attribute that to some poorly developed countries, but not to Canada.

Cities are dumping raw sewage into the oceans. Landfills are spewing waste which is entering into aquafirs and spreading into our waters. We have brownfields in every city and about 50,000 contaminated sites in Canada.

We have a Kyoto plan to which we have committed to 6% below 1990 levels. The member mentioned that we have committed $3.7 billion. Let us examine that $3.7 billion. Canada committed to 6% below 1990 levels. By 2000 we were 20% above 1990 levels and today we are 30% above. That $3.7 billion went down the drain with nothing to show for it. If that is accomplishment in the eyes of the Liberals, then they are the only ones thinking that way.

The big problem with this whole environmental issue is that the government does not have a plan nor does it have a vision. It does not know how to deal with water or the whole issue of air pollution. A major battle is going on between NRCan and environment. They are more interested in protecting their turf and fighting with each other than they are with accomplishing anything. I hope that will change soon and that we will be the ones to do that.

An important point to mention to our NDP friends is that cooperation rather than confrontation will get them a lot further. Industry knows it is good to be green. Industry understands what that means. It is good for business. All of the ads for Ford, DaimlerChrysler, GM and Toyota talk about being green. It should not be a big stretch to sit down and work with them and show them a vision.

As my colleague mentioned, had this been done in 1992 when climate change was first identified as a problem, we would be a lot further down the track than we are here in the last weeks of Kyoto trying to accomplish something. Those guys just do not know where they are going, and that is the most important point.

What has been mentioned in today's debate is that this is a global market. No longer are we isolated into planning for one country. We cannot isolate ourselves from our number one trading partner. There are $1.4 billion a day crossing the border. Like it or not, that is the reality of Canada. One in four jobs, and in some places higher than that, depend on that. We work in a cooperative manner to accomplish something, and that is what this is all about.

I was working on the Sumas 2 project in the Fraser Valley, looking at the building of a power plant right on the B.C.-Washington border. After spending time in that community I realized just how bad the pollution was. That is the second most polluted smog belt in Canada. The first is in southern Ontario, which I have visited as well. We realize that Canadians want us to deal with the smog and pollution problem. It is only common sense.

We have higher incidences of asthma and other health problems associated with pollution. Industry understands that. People understand that. The only ones who do not seem to understand are the government members across the way. Instead, they sign an international agreement with targets that they have no idea how they might achieve. Their solution will be to send the money offshore, buy that hot air wherever they can find it, instead of dealing with the technological solutions that we could find here in Canada.

I really believe Canadians want us to deal with the smog problem, the smog days in Toronto, in Ottawa and in the Fraser Valley, which is caused by sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter and surface ozone.

What is the government doing? The government is attacking carbon dioxide. The government is thinking about, believe it or not, making CO

2

a toxic substance and regulating it under CEPA.

CO

2

is a plant food. CO

2

is what we give off as animals. CO

2

is what one pumps into a greenhouse to get more plant growth.

Technology is moving quickly. There is the sequestering of CO

2

. I saw a situation where a plant in Denmark was capturing the CO

2

, gasifying the CO

2

and selling it in tanks to greenhouses to pump into the greenhouses. It was also being sent to Norway to pump down oil wells to increase the removal of oil and gas by 30%.

What are we doing in Canada? We are using water, pure clean water and pumping it down wells.

There are so many things that the government could show some leadership in and yet it is basically doing nothing. We are signing an international agreement and we have no plan. We are going to send the money off and companies that would have liked to have cooperated on a plan will not be able to. They will be deprived of that money for research and development and all of those good things on which we could become leaders.

What is the government occupied with now? Again, we have the players of Environment Canada and NRCan having a battle over whether it is a poison or not. I do not know, but I know my background in biology would certainly have a difficult time finding CO

2

to be classified as a poison by anyone. Anyone who understands photosynthesis would know how important CO

2

is to life.

We need to move forward technologically. We need to look at hybrid vehicles. We need to look at fleet vehicles, using natural gas, using various forms of hybrids or using propane.

The government could be doing so many things but what is it preoccupied with? It is going to force the auto industry into some kind of regulations that in fact will handicap them. The end result will be auto jobs here in Ontario will be lost. There is no other answer to that.

If the government had sat down with the auto industry 10 years ago and told the industry what had to be done, told the industry what happened in Rio and what was in the Kyoto accord, then maybe together they could have come up with a solution. Instead, it holds a hammer over the industry's head, the hammer of mandatory regulations, with no help and no other solutions. That is just not the way to go. We have learned that and we have seen that.

Companies do have an option. They have the option to leave Canada, to leave Ontario where those jobs are.

I could take a lot longer to elaborate on the environmental hazards of what the government is doing.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to take issue with my colleague from Alberta because he criticized some of the comments our environment critic made with regard to his support on the mandatory regulation of standards.

Elizabeth May, the executive director of the Sierra Club, in reference to a survey done over the course of the last election, to which that member responded, said that one of the biggest surprises they had was his commitment to regulate fuel economy and “abandoning the voluntary approach”.

During the same period of time, five days before the last election, Simon Tuck and Greg Keenan from the Globe and Mail said that the Conservatives “were abandoning the voluntary approach with regard to fuel economy and emissions and were going to the mandatory”.

I wonder if he could tell us, in terms of his opening comments to our environment critic this afternoon, what his position is. Is he in favour of mandatory or is he opposed to it?

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sort of feel like the Prime Minister today. He gets quoted and all those things.

We sit down with the industry and we take the fuels. What we were talking about were fuel cells, the hybrid vehicles and what the auto industry could do. For instance, when we go up a hill we use six cylinders, when we go down a hill we use two cylinders. If we were to ask the industry to put regulations on those kinds of things, I am sure, if they are intelligent regulations that will make the industry competitive wherever it went, then the industry would agree to them.

The whole idea is to work with the companies, put the regulations in which then keeps out foreign competitors who will not agree to those kind of things. Those are the kind of off the shelf technologies that, yes, we can regulate and we can control.

Those members can imply that is massive regulation that would put all Canadian businesses out of business, which is probably what they would do, but how do they equate that with their union buddies when they talk about throwing these regulations on and having that industry leave the country? How do they stand in front of auto workers and tell them that sort of thing?

We must work with them and put in those kinds of regulations with which they agree.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, with respect to my colleague's remarks, I suspect that anything can be a poison if it is taken at the wrong time, in the wrong place or in the wrong quantity. However he is talking about smog.

I am the member for Peterborough which is downwind of the general Toronto area. Many years ago, smog was a phenomenon of downtown Toronto. It no longer is. The air in downtown Toronto is quite clean. It moved out to the suburbs and for quite a long time there was smog in the suburbs. However, today in Ontario, where I live, on several occasions the peak smog, the peak pollution has been in Peterborough and villages like Omemee and Lakefield, places which perhaps my colleague does not know. These are tiny rural communities. One of the reasons for that is that we are downwind of Highway 401. Ground level ozone, which he mentioned and which he knows is a poison, now develops around our lakes where we have cottages and things of this type.

I know he is tied to the oil industry, but would it not be better environmentally and better economically for the oil industry, which he so well represents, to use oil as a base in the petrochemical industry rather than simply burning it and polluting the environment?

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, in reality maybe I understand a little what it is like to be a Quebecker and how people sometimes trash them. It is a little bit like that being an Albertan; just because a person is an Albertan, somehow he or she is hooked to the oil industry. I have never worked for that industry. I have never had anything to do with it. I have no connections with it, so I really do not know what the member is talking about. That is the problem; people just assume things.

The reality is, I believe, that the future of technology is fantastic. Whether it is wind, whether it is solar, or whether it is geothermal, biomass and ultimately hydrogen, that is where we have to end up. When we do that, we will preserve the oil and gas industry by doing value added things with it, such as pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and petrochemicals of various kinds. That is where the oil industry's future is, certainly not burning it in cars.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley very much for bringing forward today's motion, which is very important not only for today's society but for our children's future.

I keep hearing from other sides of the House about the cost. What is the cost of all of this? The cost right now is 16,000 lives in this country every year. The cost is hundreds of millions of dollars in medical treatments for people with asthma, breathing problems and lung problems. There are two words that come to mind which as a kid growing up I had never heard of. One is Pulmicort and the other is Symbicort. I use Symbicort now. It is a puffer, an inhaler used by people with bronchial or asthmatic problems. My daughter has one as well.

I do not recollect seeing very many children with heavy breathing problems when I was attending school. There may have been one or two in the whole school with asthma and who required specific medical attention, but it was very rare. Many children now have breathing problems. Today's motion will not cure it all, but it will go a long way in clearing the air for many generations down the road.

The cost of not doing something is death. That is what will happen if we sit idle in the House and expel more hot air at each other, if we sit on our hands and say we cannot do anything because of all of these other factors. The debate is over now. It is time we took the bull by the horns and worked with everyone to get this thing done.

I was very pleased to attend a conference which the hon. member for Red Deer held a few months ago with a congresswoman from California. She told us how she had fought for years in the halls of the California legislature in order to get mandatory legislation on car emissions in that state to be the best and strictest in North America. Eventually she won her argument.

She came to Canada and the hon. member for Red Deer, a member of the official opposition, invited us to a presentation she was making. I had assumed by that invitation to see her that quite possibly the hon. member for Red Deer was interested in what she was saying, having no idea that members of his own party would say that what she was saying really had no merit at all. If that woman could pursue that and have the state of California accept the toughest emission controls in North America, we in Canada should be able to follow suit fairly quickly.

I am very proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party which has worked with labour, industry and environmental groups to develop a green car strategy, and which we released prior to the last election. It is a successful program. New Democrats had this idea. It is free. The government can take it and run with it. We know it is a success. We know it will create jobs now and in the future. We think this is the way to go.

I am rather concerned about the Conservatives always switching the debate over to the government's lack of responsibility on what it has done on things like Kyoto. I want to remind the Conservatives that everything they were against before, they now seem to support. In the flag debate 40 years ago, the Conservatives voted against the new flag. They voted against medicare. They vote against everything that members in the NDP have pushed for and which Canadians wish to have.

Tommy Douglas was hung in effigy when he brought in medicare in Saskatchewan. He has been inducted into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame. When Ed Schreyer brought public auto insurance to Manitoba, people screamed and yelled and said that it could not be done, that it was against their rights. Now Manitobans love public auto insurance.

Today in debate the Conservatives said that they were concerned about day care, that they did not like public day care and that the money should be given to the parents. They are right in that regard. Parents should have more money in order to make the choices they want. Then they said that $5 billion was not enough for day care. We in the NDP are really stymied as to exactly where they stand.

If and when day care gets in, which cannot happen fast enough for members of the NDP, I can guarantee that 20 years from now, Conservatives, if there are any left in this land, will stand up and defend day care. I can just see it again.

There is one other thing. The Conservatives talk about a free vote on the issue of same sex marriage. They blame the Liberals for not allowing a free vote for members of cabinet. I remind them that Mr. Mulroney, during the abortion debate, ordered his cabinet to vote a certain way and allowed the backbenchers to vote freely. It is amazing how quickly the Conservatives can forget their own history and move on to other issues.